The problem with conversations like this (at least, one of them) is the term 'Christian'.

It is impossible for our founding fathers to have been Christian in the way you are using it, as that term didn't even exist (in this context) until the mid 1900s.

Do Catholics hold the same beliefs as Lutherans? Do Protestants agree wholeheartedly with Puritans? Nope. They differ on a whole lot of things, some of them fundamental to the faith, and many that skew them to one side or the other of the middle.

By referring to them all as "Christian", the Right can claim such things as "The large Majority of Americans are Christians". Because it sounds a lot better than a Catholic standing on the pulpit saying "We represent 23.9% of Americans!"

So before you start putting labels on things, perhaps you should consider if the label is appropriate.

And that's before even touching the "Founding Fathers were Christians bit". Because you know what? Some were, and many weren't. And all of them believed not only in the freedom of religion, but the freedom FROM religion.

First off, I am interested in hearing your response to my bindi analogy. I noticed you left that part of my post out of your quotes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devious21

I didn't say it was. My point wasn't that someone else besides Christians were the religious majority during the founding of our nation. My point was that it's crucial that the government abides by the constitution and the first amendment.

The government does abide by the Constitution...beliefs aren't forced on anyone in this country...there are laws in place which guarantee that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devious21

You just have to do it with your own money. When the government does it, it's using tax payer money. It's taking the money from someone who doesn't believe in those things and makes them pay for it. By printing it on their money, it shoves it in their face and into their wallets.

The government does a lot of things with taxpayer dollars that earns disagreement from one segment of society or another.

They build Federal law enforcement buildings and court houses which offends people who believe in a confederational system vice federalist one.

They tax people on transactions, activities that many people feel shouldn't be taxed.

They hand out money to unions when some people disapprove of Unions.

They build memorials to war veterans when some people think that those vets were war criminals.

They give corporate bail-out's to companies when many people feel said companies will only repeat their mistakes and encounter the same fiscal problems in the future.

There is no way the government can do something that will find universal agreement with everyone in this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devious21

Imagine if I printed Atheist money that had a picture that said "No Fairytales" on it. Then I forced your city to buy all their goods with it.

If I were living a country that was founded by atheists and consisted predominantly atheists as a Christian, I would understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devious21

Saying your point is consistent with our heritage is not a good point. Slavery is also consistent with our heritage. The 1st amendment is more important than the government paying for you to be nostalgic. Pay for it yourself.

Slavery has always been inconsistent with our Constitution. Even when it wasn't outlawed by the Constitution, it blatantly contradicted the Bill of Rights. Some of the founding fathers even acknowledged that as such when they were writing that document.

Also slavery physically deprived people of their rights....printing a religious phrase on our currency never took away anyone's right to worship or abstain from worship.

Nice try, but you'll have a hard time comparing the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devious21

And those philosophies are based on the moral philosophies that came before them. They didn't invent the Golden Rule. If we had laws telling us not to eat shellfish or wear blended fabrics, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

I'm not religious, but even I acknowledge that there is a historical difference in what Christianity preached and what other philosophies preached on morals and humanity.

Turning the other cheek, love thy neighbor as thyself, washing the feet of beggars and sinners...there was a marked difference in the tone and content of what early Christianity preached and the other "Golden Rule" like philosophies that came before it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devious21

If the goal is to treat all religious beliefs equally and have religious freedom, then there is NO REASON for the government to endorse any religion. That doesn't help us keep religious freedom.

It excludes people for no gain and at their expense.

You say tomato I say tamato.

You say religious endorsement, I say national heritage.

The fact that you are even having this conversation about how offended you are, all without any secret, or religious, police knocking down your door to shut you up should indicate that we, as a country, can acknowledge our historical roots and still respect peoples' religious beliefs.

The problem with conversations like this (at least, one of them) is the term 'Christian' .

It is impossible for our founding fathers to have been Christian in the way you are using it, as that term didn't even exist (in this context) until the mid 1900s.

Dude, girl, young boy, whoever you are, you need to pick up a history book and do some reading. It would do you some good.

Quote:

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
-- The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

Quote:

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

Quote:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
-- John Hancock, History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

First off, I am interested in hearing your response to my bindi analogy. I noticed you left that part of my post out of your quotes.

I just missed it. A politician wearing a bindi is no different from a politician wearing a crucifix. There's no issue with it and it's irrelevant. It's an individual choosing to express their freedom of religion, which individuals have. Now, if they chose to enact a tax to erect a statue of a symbolic bindi on public land, that would be a different story. You are now asking other people to agree with your beliefs. That's a closer analogy to what we are talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Slavery has always been inconsistent with our Constitution. Even when it wasn't outlawed by the Constitution, it blatantly contradicted the Bill of Rights. Some of the founding fathers even acknowledged that as such when they were writing that document.

Also slavery physically deprived people of their rights....printing a religious phrase on our currency never took away anyone's right to worship or abstain from worship.

Nice try, but you'll have a hard time comparing the two.

You completely missed the point of my comparison which was that something being historical doesn't lend it credence or necessarily mean we should celebrate it, if that was the point you were making. That point had nothing to do with the founding fathers or the constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalko43

The government does abide by the Constitution...beliefs aren't forced on anyone in this country...there are laws in place which guarantee that.

The fact that you are even having this conversation about how offended you are, all without any secret, or religious, police knocking down your door to shut you up should indicate that we, as a country, can acknowledge our historical roots and still respect peoples' religious beliefs.

You seem to think that the Government being Christian is fine as long as other religions aren't being imprisoned for their beliefs. That's not fine and was not it's intention.

I'm not arguing that someone is going to come to my house to stop me from believing. I'm arguing that you fundamentally don't understand the intent of the founders if you think it's okay for the Government to endorse Christianity but tolerate everyone else. That is exactly what the Establishment clause is tasked with avoiding.

If that's what you believe, you've missed the point of what we were trying to avoid. It's a protection that was put in place for a reason. The Government is neutral by design so that individuals are guaranteed Freedom of Religion. You'd prefer it if the Government was Christian and then we simply "ok'd" other religions as a privileged. That is not an okay system because the privilege can be revoked. You arguing that it's okay to be a privilege because we have it now. That's simply not good enough. The American in me is sad I have to explain this.

You seem to think that the Government being Christian is fine as long as other religions aren't being imprisoned for their beliefs. That's not fine and was not it's intention.

I'm not arguing that someone is going to come to my house to stop me from believing. I'm arguing that you fundamentally don't understand the intent of the founders if you think it's okay for the Government to endorse Christianity but tolerate everyone else. That is exactly what the Establishment clause is tasked with avoiding.

If that's what you believe, you've missed the point of what we were trying to avoid. It's a protection that was put in place for a reason. The Government is neutral by design so that individuals are guaranteed Freedom of Religion. You'd prefer it if the Government was Christian and then we simply "ok'd" other religions as a privileged. That is not an okay system because the privilege can be revoked. You arguing that it's okay to be a privilege because we have it now. That's simply not good enough. The American in me is sad I have to explain this.

The US government is not Christian.

Nowhere in our constitution does Christianity get earmarked as the official religion of our nation (not in the same way that Anglicanism is in UK for example).

This country was founded by a mostly Christian population, thus there is a historical connection.
The laws of this country are fundamentally based on Judeo-Christian philosophy, which is almost purely a western phenomenon. Go read about the beheadings of 'adulterous' women in Saudi Arabia or the corporal punishment of drug smugglers in parts of Asia. The assassinations of journalists in Russia. There is a defined difference in the US legal system and most of the rest of the world.

Like I said earlier, acknowledging these historical and philosophical roots is not the same as endorsing Christianity.

No one gets special treatment in America because of their religious affiliation. There is no elite social/political club that you only get into because you are a Lutheran or Catholic. This country has traditionally been a Christian nation and that is all that is acknowledged in phrases like, 'In God We Trust.'

As for the government using your tax dollars on a cause/issue that you disagree with...as I said earlier, just about everything that the government does with tax payer dollars earns resentment from one segment of society or another.

I acknowledge that you have an opinion on this issue Devious21 , and I respect that opinion. I just think that you are trying to argue over an issue that is ultimately insignificant. This government has never done anything to inhibit its citizens religious rights. I see no slippery slope. I see no erosion of that part of the Bill of Rights. Religious freedom is simply too ingrained in this country's heritage for any one group or person to mess with it.

Dude, girl, young boy, whoever you are, you need to pick up a history book and do some reading. It would do you some good.

I'd advise you to do the same.

The term "Christian", as it pertains to identifying with other like minded religious folk, originated during the fight against Roe v Wade. Before that, people would identify as Catholic, or Protestant, or whatever. But the Anti-Choice crowd needed a more inclusive term to show a larger group opposed to abortion, and the term "Christian", in it's political sense, was born. And born again (pun intended) with Jimmy Carter. It stuck, because it's easier to say God is on your team when you can show a country of 70% Christians, instead of, oh, I dunno, 1.7% Mormon.

Really, be honest, can you say that Mormons share the same beliefs as Catholics? That they want the same things? That the two religions have any business lumping themselves together as "Christians" in any conversation regarding core values? Yet they both identify that way, because of politics.

The term "Christian", as it pertains to identifying with other like minded religious folk, originated during the fight against Roe v Wade. Before that, people would identify as Catholic, or Protestant, or whatever. But the Anti-Choice crowd needed a more inclusive term to show a larger group opposed to abortion, and the term "Christian", in it's political sense, was born. And born again (pun intended) with Jimmy Carter. It stuck, because it's easier to say God is on your team when you can show a country of 70% Christians, instead of, oh, I dunno, 1.7% Mormon.

So I guess you didn't see those quotes I provided in the earlier post.

So I guess you didn't see those quotes I provided in the earlier post.

Sure I did. And the quotes you provided use the term "Christian" in a very different way. They use it to describe a way of acting (in a Christ-like manner).

And that's well and good, and the way the term was used prior to the mid 1900s. Now, when people use the term Christian, especially in online arguments or politics, they use it to mean "those who believe in Jesus". The problem is, those who believe in Jesus don't necessarily agree with one another any more than they agree with Atheists. So what exactly is a Christian nation? Try and explain it without using the word to define itself.

I know plenty of Atheists with higher moral values than a self purported "Christian".

So when you say this country was founded with Christian values, it's a red herring. What values, specifically, qualify as Christian? And what metric are you using to ascertain that the founding fathers were indeed Christian, as opposed to Deists (which most historical records support)?

Now, when people use the term Christian, especially in online arguments or politics, they use it to mean "those who believe in Jesus".

That's exactly how the term was used back during the 1700's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gle8

The problem is, those who believe in Jesus don't necessarily agree with one another any more than they agree with Atheists. So what exactly is a Christian nation? Try and explain it without using the word to define itself.

There have always been differences of sects and opinions in Christianity, even during the Biblical times. That doesn't take away from the fundamental similarities that exist amongst Christians.

There are very big differences between Shia, Sunni, Sufi, ect. but they all consider each other Muslims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gle8

So when you say this country was founded with Christian values, it's a red herring. What values, specifically, qualify as Christian? And what metric are you using to ascertain that the founding fathers were indeed Christian, as opposed to Deists (which most historical records support)?

1) Christians were in the majority amongst the founding fathers and this country's early settlers. Deists, atheists, agnostics, ect. were in the minority...To suggest otherwise is pure fantasy.

2) Christian people believe in the divinity of Christ and the teachings he espoused. Regardless of differences in other nuanced beliefs, there are universal aspects of that faith that are shared by the Christian community.

Ergo, the early founders of this country were Christian in the communal sense.

There are Presbyterian congregations that fully support Gay Marriage (and don't condemn homosexuality). There are Lutheran congregations that allow for contraception, and abortion to a certain extent. So when a politician (or anyone really) takes a stand on one of those issues and cites their "Christian Values" or "Christian Faith" as a basis for their stance, they are using the word in an entirely inappropriate way: to lump all of Christianity into support of their viewpoint.

There are Presbyterian congregations that fully support Gay Marriage (and don't condemn homosexuality). There are Lutheran congregations that allow for contraception, and abortion to a certain extent. So when a politician (or anyone really) takes a stand on one of those issues and cites their "Christian Values" or "Christian Faith" as a basis for their stance, they are using the word in an entirely inappropriate way: to lump all of Christianity into support of their viewpoint.

And there are Catholics that support abortion.

No one has ever claimed that all Christians have the same viewpoints on every issue...just like no one has ever claimed that all Muslims have the same viewpoints on everything.

There are however still universal beliefs (belief in Christ, the ten commandments, heaven and earth) that define Christians, hence why the term exists in the first place.

You are only digging your grave deeper on this issue the more you write. I provided you quotes of some of the early founders using the term 'Christian' to refer to a communal faith. There were various Christian sects among the early colonists of this country, thus when the term 'Christian' was used back then it did in fact refer to a religious community. Now please go troll somewhere else.

I was addressing the fact that you'd be seemingly okay with that outcome as long as it wasn't locking up or imprisoning the other religions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Like I said earlier, acknowledging these historical and philosophical roots is not the same as endorsing Christianity.

No one gets special treatment in America because of their religious affiliation.

Anytime the government forces us all to pay for a particular religion's beliefs, someone is getting special treatment. You seemed to acknowledge that fact and argue that JUST in the case of Christianity, it's okay because of our history. Therefore you're acknowledging and condoning the special treatment as long as it doesn't get to the point where "people are being locked up". I argued that you're wrong on principle, the same one you just alluded to about no one getting special treatment. It doesn't matter that it's not resulting in people being locked up, it's fundamentally wrong.

If a state decided to erect an Islamic Star and Crescent statue in front of a court house on public land and maintained using public funds, how would that not be special treatment?

In order to be fairly represented, we'd need to erect and maintain statues for all other religions if we wanted to ensure no one religion was getting special treatment. Now we get into the business of erecting and maintaining statues for all religions we can think of to try and fairly represent everyone equally, while it makes much more sense not to go down that path at all and leave expressing religion to private citizens, the individuals.

If Government stays neutral, we don't have the issue of trying to maintain equality, all while spending our tax dollars on a frivolous exercise.

No one has ever claimed that all Christians have the same viewpoints on every issue...just like no one has ever claimed that all Muslims have the same viewpoints on everything.

Really? Turn on any news program, political rally, heck, any coverage of anything that mentions the word Christian. This world is chock full of people claiming Christian Values as their basis for whatever change (or regression) they are pulling for.

I'm not saying that YOU are doing it, nor am I saying there aren't intelligent people out there that don't know the difference. I'm saying "Christian" is used much the same as Liberal or Conservative: to slap a label on something in order to color it the way you want.

Really? Turn on any news program, political rally, heck, any coverage of anything that mentions the word Christian. This world is chock full of people claiming Christian Values as their basis for whatever change (or regression) they are pulling for.

I'm not saying that YOU are doing it, nor am I saying there aren't intelligent people out there that don't know the difference. I'm saying "Christian" is used much the same as Liberal or Conservative: to slap a label on something in order to color it the way you want.

Media pundits may use the term 'Christian' in that way to slap a label on a certain political group.

I know a lot of Christians who use that same term differently and who acknowledge the great differences that exist amongst Christian groups.

You are trying to transpose your view of the word over to how everyone in the world uses that word...a bit presumptuous on your part.

I was addressing the fact that you'd be seemingly okay with that outcome as long as it wasn't locking up or imprisoning the other religions.

Anytime the government forces us all to pay for a particular religion's beliefs, someone is getting special treatment. You seemed to acknowledge that fact and argue that JUST in the case of Christianity, it's okay because of our history. Therefore you're acknowledging and condoning the special treatment as long as it doesn't get to the point where "people are being locked up". I argued that you're wrong on principle, the same one you just alluded to about no one getting special treatment. It doesn't matter that it's not resulting in people being locked up, it's fundamentally wrong.

If a state decided to erect an Islamic Star and Crescent statue in front of a court house on public land and maintained using public funds, how would that not be special treatment?

In order to be fairly represented, we'd need to erect and maintain statues for all other religions if we wanted to ensure no one religion was getting special treatment. Now we get into the business of erecting and maintaining statues for all religions we can think of to try and fairly represent everyone equally, while it makes much more sense not to go down that path at all and leave expressing religion to private citizens, the individuals.

If Government stays neutral, we don't have the issue of trying to maintain equality, all while spending our tax dollars on a frivolous exercise.

I have addressed most of what your brought up in my prior posts...you have your views and I have mine. But in regards to that last comment in bold that you made:

If we are talking about gratuitous waste of taxpayer dollars...there are issues that are much more pressing than the expenditure for printing religious phrases on our currency.

Billions of $ wasted on contractors, ineffective and redundant law federal enforcement agencies, bailout money for companies that end up going bankrupt down the line, grant money for failed startup's...the list is quite extensive.

If saving taxpayer dollars is your concern, you should look elsewhere first.

I have addressed most of what your brought up in my prior posts...you have your views and I have mine. But in regards to that last comment in bold that you made:

If we are talking about gratuitous waste of taxpayer dollars...there are issues that are much more pressing than the expenditure for printing religious phrases on our currency.

Billions of $ wasted on contractors, ineffective and redundant law federal enforcement agencies, bailout money for companies that end up going bankrupt down the line, grant money for failed startup's...the list is quite extensive.

If saving taxpayer dollars is your concern, you should look elsewhere first.

Again, it's an argument of principle and it seems clear now that you're not attempting to refute it. You are just saying "it's not that bad". "We aren't imprisoning people", "We waste more money other places", etc. You essentially conceded the principle of my point.

My point is that it's fundamentally wrong. I don't think we need to stop what we're doing and fix these things, I never once said they need to be addressed immediately, I just can't believe it takes this much discussion to agree on something that should be an accepted principle on which the foundation of our freedoms rely upon.

I never said I'm looking to save money, I was pointing out that if you make someone else pay for your benefits, someone is obviously getting special treatment. It isn't about the cost, it's that it's wrong. I was using the idea of forcing someone to pay for your beliefs because it's a tangible thing. You are literally taking their money and spending it on your religion when they haven't asked you to. You can't do that and ALSO claim that you are treating all religions equally, at least not with a straight face.

Instead of just simply agreeing, there's special pleading about how Christianity has historical significance and it doesn't matter because nobody is being imprisoned. These don't argue the point, they distract from it.

If you agree religions should be treated equally, then you should be able to recognize when they aren't being treated equally. If you think Christianity is special and gets to be treated "more equal" because of historical significance, then we are just going to fundamentally disagree.

Again, it's an argument of principle and it seems clear now that you're not attempting to refute it. You are just saying "it's not that bad". "We aren't imprisoning people", "We waste more money other places", etc. You essentially conceded the principle of my point.

My point is that it's fundamentally wrong. I don't think we need to stop what we're doing and fix these things, I never once said they need to be addressed immediately, I just can't believe it takes this much discussion to agree on something that should be an accepted principle on which the foundation of our freedoms rely upon.

I never said I'm looking to save money, I was pointing out that if you make someone else pay for your benefits, someone is obviously getting special treatment. It isn't about the cost, it's that it's wrong. I was using the idea of forcing someone to pay for your beliefs because it's a tangible thing. You are literally taking their money and spending it on your religion when they haven't asked you to. You can't do that and ALSO claim that you are treating all religions equally, at least not with a straight face.

Instead of just simply agreeing, there's special pleading about how Christianity has historical significance and it doesn't matter because nobody is being imprisoned. These don't argue the point, they distract from it.

If you agree religions should be treated equally, then you should be able to recognize when they aren't being treated equally. If you think Christianity is special and gets to be treated "more equal" because of historical significance, then we are just going to fundamentally disagree.

We disagree on this issue. Enough said.

I am much more interested in hearing your take on the special 'gem' of a thread that 128Convertibleguy dropped on this forum over here: